President Donald Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom are in a legal battle over the National Guard deployment in Los Angeles, following a court ruling that temporarily blocked the president’s use of military forces. The situation arises after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit put on hold a lower court’s decision, which had ordered Trump to relinquish control over the National Guard. This case, involving a panel of judges from different administrations, awaits a decision on whether to grant a longer-term stay.
Trump and his team argue that the National Guard’s deployment was necessary to protect federal personnel and federal buildings amid anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) riots. The Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys emphasized that blocking the president’s orders would be ‘unprecedented’ and ‘constitutionally anathema,’ highlighting the potential dangers of such a move.
Meanwhile, Newsom and his legal team maintained that Trump’s use of the National Guard was driven by ‘vanity’ and an attempt to ‘instill fear’ and ‘incite a response.’ The case could have broader implications, particularly regarding the interpretation of Title 10 provisions that allow for the federalization of the National Guard. Legal experts speculate that Trump may seek to use the Insurrection Act as a means to bypass the court’s ruling.
The legal battle against the backdrop of Trump’s military parade in Washington, D.C., which coincides with his birthday and commemorates the Army’s 250th anniversary. Critics have dubbed the day ‘No Kings Day’ as they plan to protest the president’s show of force. The protests are expected to occur widely, with California alone anticipated to host dozens of demonstrations.
As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome of the case could set a precedent for executive authority over military forces, with potential implications for future conflicts involving the National Guard and civilian leadership.